Appeal No. 1998-2674
Application 08/329,724
in the Phrase Window which is associated with the Cursor
Tool acting upon the icon. The cursor then returns to the
default display of the arrow (step 3)." Thus, previously
undisplayed information is not displayed "within the
cursor."
For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the
Examiner erred in finding claim 20 anticipated by Steele.
The rejection of claim 20 is reversed. The obviousness
rejection of claim 21 does not cure the deficiency with
respect to claim 20. Thus, the rejection of claim 21 is
reversed.
The Examiner has stated "that the language 'the cursor
information' lacks of [sic] antecedent basis" (EA7).
Appellants respond that when the claim language is properly
parsed, the definite article "the" modifies only the word
"cursor," not the words "cursor information," and the claim
is not defective (RBr8-9). We agree with Appellants'
argument that "the" modifies only the word "cursor" and that
there is no antecedent basis problem.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-9, 20, and 21 are reversed.
- 15 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007